The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Northwestern Un\versitY UbrarY WO R K S P R O G R E S S A ... J 8703 D MI N I S T R A T I O N Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator Corrington Gill Assistant Administrator RES EAR P,,H Howard B. Myers, Director Social Research Division BULLET~ N REASONS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS TO WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT IN URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITIES OF OHIO Series II No .., April 3, 1936 Digitized qy NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY l5... • ~ 8703 Preface '\ J.. seri e s of studies was undertaken..by the D..ivision of Social Research in December 1935 to ascertain the validity of reports that large numbers of relief clients certified as eligible for Works Program employment were refusing to accept jobs to which they had been assigned.The . series of studies was divided into two parts; the first included inquiries in Cincinnati, Toledo, and the rural ·and town yr(\:r:tions of Stark and J..thens Counties, Ohio. The second part, to be discussed i~ a subsequent research bulletin, consisted of studies in 13 citiesl/ distributed throughout the country. The reassignment forms used by the W. P. ~-labor offices arrl the original assignment forms used by the United States Employment Service , the National Reemployment Service, or the state employment services provided a means of ascertaining the names of clients who had at any time failed to accept referral to a W.P.J..~ job or .failed to report to a job to which they had been referred. From theoa forms random samples were drawn for the purpose of intensive study. J..fter necessary information regarding family co:nposition, .usual occupation; and recent income for each referred worker, had been transcribed from the W.P.J... records and from relief agency files, the specific reason for the client's failure to take a W.P.J... job was obtained by means of a home interview. Whenever the validity of the reas0~ given by a client was open to doubt, it was followed up by interviews with family case workers, employers, and doctors. These studies of failures to accept W.P.J... assignments are someTThat similar to the series of surveys conducted in the suilUiler of 1935 for the purpose of ascertaining whether relief clients were refusing to take private jobs. J..nalysis of failures to taka Works Program jobs is considerably simplified by the fact that all assignments are made through official agencies and that the hours of work, conditions of employment, ~nd rates of pay are matters of record. The study in Cincinnati was conducted by Edward J. Webster, that in Toledo by Daniel Scheinman, and that in the rural ar eas of Stark and J..thens Counties by Bryce Ryan, members of the S~ ecial Inquiries Section. The three sections of th e Ohio study are presented in this bulletin in summary form; a somewhat fuller statement is presented for the Cincinnati findings followed by brief descriptions for Toledo and for the ro.ral areas, since it seemed unnecessary to repeat in detail the points upon which the findings were similar. lf The cities are: ~tlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Bridgeport Connecticut; Butte, Montana; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Manchester, New Hampshire; Omaha, Nebraska; Paterson. New Jersey; St. Louis, Missouri; San Franciscb, California; WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania. Prepa red under the supervision of J... Ross Eckler, Chief Special Inquiries Se~tion Digitized by NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY -i- 8703 Taken in relation t o th e t otal number of assignment s to W.P.i. j obs, the proportion of u..Dsuccessful a sIn signments is not unduly l ~~rg d. Tol ed~ 70 pe r cent and in Cincinnati . 68 p erc ent of ~11 a s signmen ts t o W P. J,. . j ob s r esult ed in pl acem1:mt s, while 30 and 32 percen t res pec tively of the assignm8nts were un succe ss- fw.l./. Cincinnati jToledo ( a s of Nov. (as of 22, 1935. ) Dec . 2 1 935) Total .h.ssignments 19,901 16,572 Unsuccessful J..ssignments 6 ,516 5 , 034 P e rc ent Unsuccessful 32 30 from h nal ysi s of sampl e s drawn t he fai lur e s t o r ep ort show s that t hese were no t r efus als of jobs , as they have been e rroneo 1sl y cal l ed , s ince in practic~lly all cafes the cl ient was unable t o accept the job for some entirel y valid reason , such as 11 already empl oyed at a private job 11 , "not ification of j ob not r eceived ", or 11 unempl oyab l e 11 , 'l'he impos s ibility of ke ep in& complete u~to-the- ~inute r ecords on all ce rt i f ied worke rs accounts f or the issu1 l/ Comparabl e figur es are not avail able for the rural s ections of St a r k and J..thens Counti e s . The fra grr,cntary data that do exi st indicate a pro portion of unsuccessful ~lace~ents s omewhat high er than that r 8co r ded in either Toledo or Cincinnati . Data for various othe r communities , howeve r, reveal a generally lower propo rt i~n than tha t in the t wo Ohio c i ties • a:ice of a ss ignment slips to tho s e who should have been cl a ssifi ed a s t empo rarily unas si gn~ble . Onl y a n egligibl e number of c a s e s involved cle~rl y unjust i fied r efusI n CincinT1at i t nree a ls to work. out of t he 546 cas e s stud ied r efus ed Seven out of ~~O Toledo to work . cas e s were considered t o invo lve cl ea rly unjustified r efusals of W.P • lfo case occurr ed in .1.,. erri:1.-l oyment. the rural s2.mpl e studied. in ·st a rk and .~thens Counties which was cl ear The unjustified ly u~jus tifiable . ref u.5als in the two citie s, as c om-par ei wi~Q the tot ~l numbe r of a ssi gnment~ ~ show that only thr ee out of eve ry 500 pe rs ons a s signed in Toledo a PC one ou t of 500 i n Cincin~ nati we re :eUlieratel y a nd un j usti fiabl;y r efus ing Yi ,p . Ju ass i gnment s . I n 2 f ew '."'. :,s e'.· whe r e doubt exi st ed a s to th e , ·2.l i d.ity of the cli en t ' s r eason , c.efinite de cis ion was p r actical l y impo s sible , but in any event the tot al numb er of doubtful cases was smal l. 1 The ch ja: factor accounting for inability of wo r kers to accept W.P .A. j tb s was privat e empl oyment . The averaf 8 propo rtion of such cas e s in t:1e t oi;c:,:. of unsu cce ss ful a ssignment s investigated was about 40 pe rThe pe r centage s in the three cent . Cinc innati, 30 c 'mmun iti es we r e : percent ; Tol edo , 41 pe r cent ; and Stark and Athens Countie s, 5 2 pe r Si nce one of the obj ective s cen t . of th e Works ...P rogram is t o furth e r the r etur n of worke rs to p rivat e employment , the end is al r eady accompli shed i n these cas es. the Difficulti e s i n t he p ro cess of notifyi ng cli ent s of their assi gnment s p r ov i ded th e next most imporWor ke rs who tant gr oup of r eas on s. .. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 870 3 - iihad moved and could not b e l ocated , who we r e t emp or arily away from home , who s e local addresses had changed , who had not r ecei ved no tif ication , or who se notification came too l a t e , constituted 25 ne rc en t of th e cas es of un s ucce ssful r ef e rrals s tud i ed in Ci nc innati , 19 ~e r cent i n Toledo , and 1 6 percent in St a rk and hthens Counti e s . hbout 12 ""C'e rcent of th e " 0°"1':: .n- s int e r vi ewed had bee:i U..'1abl e to t A..l::e the j obs a s s i gned them b e cous e of t empo r ary o r pe r IT1cnen t disabiliti es . Some of them were te mpo r a ril:" ill at t he t ime of r ef er ral and otne rs had been e rron eous ly ce r ti f ied as eli gi ble for Wo r k s Progr am empl oyment desp i te di s abling physica l hand ica.p s . Still ot h e rs had become unemnl J , ab l e -'si nce ce r t ificat i on . Taken a s a wh ol e , the s e ca s e s conpit~ted .13 pe r cent of t he s a.~yl e in Cinc i nnat i, 11 pe r cent in Toledo , and 12 p e rc ent in t he rural and t own po r tion s of Star k and ~thens Count i ~s . . l,.mong the ot he r r eas ons f o r fail u r e t o accep t job s wer e ; a lr ca i y engaged in W. P . ~ . or r e li ef wor k ; no longe r a me mbe r of r elief hous en ol d ; exce ssive di st anc e t o job o r exce ssi ve transport a tion cos ts ; need8d to car e f or dependen ts a t horue ; dec ~as0d; in school ; and in jail . Tn e s e r ea - s ons we r e believed valid i n uract i cally all the cas e s i n t erviewed on t h e gr ound s t hat t he cl ient s who gave t hem showed t hei r inab ility, and n ot the i r unwillingne ss , t o t2ke W. P . h • empl o:rment . The r e wou l d have been fe~e r unsucce ssful r e f e rrals if p r o~t r eno r ts had been available so ti.1a t all men with regt.:l 2 r private em9lo7 nent coul i have b ee~ cl2 ssifi ed a s te~,or ari l y un32sig.;1able , ad.d r e ss es corr ec t ed p r omr tl-r , and r ec ords of di s abli ng i nju::.·i 8s and illne ss e s kept up t0 da ~e . Howe ver , the Wc r ks P rog;.am procd_ur e wa s devi s ed t o avo id t he perio d~c fa mi ly visi ts r equired under u s ua~ re li e f n roc Bdur e . Revisio~s i n W. P . ~ . di str ict c ff ic e r ecords r.,us -:. ffl"al t official no ti f ication f'ro1.1 relief a 6 encie s c.t.:id fe de ral or st~te employm en t of fi c e s. Up on t he r Agular bur den of keeDing offi cial : Pc ords un to d~t e the r e was sup e ru~po~ed. , dur ing the few we e ks p rior t o Dece mbe r 1 , 1 935 t he task of plac i ng more ti1an t wo milli on men UDOn W. P . ~ . ~ rojects , end clear anc e of r eco r ds amo~g agen cie s was sub or d inated t o o ther op~ration s . U,_J.e r the s e circ mst a.11c e s , t he fact that t wo out of eve r y t hree men assigned w~r e succ e ss fully plac 3d on Wo r ks Pr ogr am job s is believ0d t o r eur es~n t a cr edi t aDl t:' r ecord . 1 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 BEASONS FOR FAILUE::: TO ACCEPT ASS IGDBNTS TO i;;c~s PFOGB.Atf EUFLOTIGNT IN UF.BAH AND RURAL COMMUN ITIES OF OHIO c:NcnrnATI From the inception of the Wor ks program to No vember 22 , 1935 the r e were rec or ded in Hamilton County , Ohio, 13,385 placements on W.P.A. jobs and 6,516 referr als f or which placements were n ot made . Since a number of the re cords of such referr als we re in p r o,cess of clee.rance when this study was unde rt aken, so.me of them were not at that ti me a vailable in t he Labor Inventory office . A r and~.m 10 percent sample was drawn fr ~m the Availab l e 5 , 460 casesl~ Of the 546 cases so selected , all we r e within the corpo r ate l imits of G5~cinnati excep t 65 , or 1 2 perceL t , which were distributed in outlying towns of Hami lt on County wi t hin a r adius of 20 to 25 mil es from the city . In the follo wing table is sho~ n a classification of the 546 unsuccessful ass i gnments acc ording to r eP.son fo r failur e : Total .... . ............ , ..... . .. . . 546 Employed •.•• .• • . . .... ... .... . 264 In private indust r y ..... 1 65 On W. P. A. jobs ..... .... . 97 In C.C.C.. ••• • . • . . . . . . . . G On lo car rel ief adm. staff ........... ........ 6 Failure of notification . ...• 133 Moved from city ..... ...• 52 Moved fr om state .. ... . . . 16 Temporarily away from home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Inc orr ect local address •. . ...... ..... .. .. 44 Notice delay8d or miscar ried .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 l/ There is no reason to believe tha t the cases awaiting cle a rance would differ in any imp ortant way from those already in the Labo r Inventory office . Physically Pe r manent Tempo r ar y Unfi t for unfit ...........•.•• 7O disability ..... , 25· disability ....• ,14 job assigned .••• 31 Ineligible .••..•........•..•••• 33 Deceased , ...•. . . . ....•.••• . 8 Non-reli ef cases ........•. 4 No longe r 2. member of re!ief househo ld ...... ~ .• 18 I n jai l .......... . ....•... 3 As sii;ned o,·c.; 1.1pation infe ri or t o usual . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • 7 re t r ans por tation fecil i- ti e s .... . .................. 1 Ho funds ·t'e, r transp or tat l 0n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 2 Trar..sp ort , .tl on co s ts t oo hi 6 h •. ... .....• ... ... ..... • 10 Othe r r e2s~~s ., .............•.• 1 8 InsufficiPncv of inc ome f r om W.P.A . er:r.-loy:-:i Pnt .....•.•.• 5 Fe f u sal t o acce}J t subunion wace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 1 Lack of n~c3ss ar y equipm0n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Anticipating private emp loyrnen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 3 Unabl e to l ee. ve home ........ 1 I'n scho ol . . ........ ... .. .. .• 1 WonE.n assigned to r.ian 1 s j nb .. .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Error in 1·efe :x;:ral re co r ds .• , 4 Ref used wit hout cause to accep t r e f e rra l .••...........• 3 Er:1::;·l oyed . Of' t he 546 place ment fail ure s in the study , 264 , or 48 pe rc en t , r ep r e sPnted p er sons al r eady at wo r ~c. Th':l 1G5 in pri vate industry , the six in t he Civilian Cons erva tion Corps and t he six employed on the l ocal relief staff may be acco,.i.r1t e d for by t he simple fact that , Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 - 2 ... regardless of their employment status, their names remained in the file of those certified for W.P.A .employment, or rteligible 11 for it, in that they had, p resumably, b e en on rel ief sometime between May 1 and November 1, 1935 . However, could all record.s have been kep t strictly to date, most of these cases woul d have been clas sed a s tempor arily unassignable , and hence would not have received referra l notices. The 87 cas es of workers a.l ready employed. on W.P.A. jobs illustrate the failure of reports to clear p ro mptly.Sufficient information was not secured to revea l ~recisely what happened i n each case when the first ref er rals were sent ou t; bu t the basic facts arL of later record a n d are indisput~b~e-namely,these per sons had taken ~.P.A . jobs. Failur e of Noti fi ca tio n .Referrals were s en t to 1 6 person s who ha.d left the state, to 52 1·:ho had l eft the city , and to six 7,ho we re temporarily away from home . In 44 ca ses no tifica tions . were u n::, 1cces sful be~i,m se sent to incorrect loca l a ddresses . The basic er~lanation of these 118 case s is t ha t t h e Ohio Sta te Em?loymen t Service had not been informed of such address changes for i t s records. Al tho~gh incorrect loca~ ~ddress ¥ s i n t his repo rt b een r egarded as the prima r y c ~use fo r failure of notifica tio n in only 44 cases , the total n~mber of diGcrepancies i n address dis coveref. i n t h e field was much larger . Coun ting only one p er case--in num erou s i nstances interviewers found it necessary to tra ce t wo, thr ee , or even a s many as four addre sse s-- t here we re 1 77 discre1)ancies . Nevert heless , in all but 44 of these c a ses not i fi ca tion rea ched the worker. 1 However , t he se discre!)B.ncies represent a seven months ' a ccumul a tion of changes on which the local r elief administ r a tion mi ght be expected to have inco:nplete information. It follo ws that the Ohio State Employment Service woul d have no informat ion covering these ca s e s unless th e indi vi dual v:o i"kers reported changes of addr e ss directly to that office. A large numbe r appar Pntly neglect ed to make such reports. The declarat io n by 20 wo rkers tha t their referral no tices had eith er been del a yed or np t recei ved mi ght occa si cnally be op en toquestion , but ~':e number of such claims was 80 srr-- •..'. .!. tha t - indi scri mi na te suspicion \:( .1ld s eem to be unwarr anted. The sta tements of some of theEe wor'c5rs wer e c:.mply verified, a n d none c f 'v:1.e ej ght who were known to have rec eiv ed later r efe rrals refused to a c -~ep t t hem . 11 F:r:rrpl oyao:-1 i ty· ;nvol ved. Twcn tyfi ve of thos ~ c ertifi ed f or work and r efer red for pl a c ement were permanen tl y une::iplo y::i.b le and o:r O!J ." !b l -~ snou:i.a no t nz.ve been certified. for Wo rks Pro gr , )11 empl oymen t. The f a cts conc erning t~mporary unempl oyab ili t y--usu. afly du e to mino r illn e ss or i n,1ury--r.ere, as a rule, r eac.i l y est.~tl i shed. . However, delays i n p:tesentir g an d filing ph:rsici 3.n 1 s s t2 te me.n t s ,,ere frequent. Thirty- one v•o r k8 r s were phys i cally unfit for the per ticular j ob to which they were ass i gned. In 21 of these c ases foremen and workers concurr ed. In 10 cases , t he worke rs considered t hemselv e s aolB t o work a t the refer r ed job but were ov erruled 2nd r ejec ted by t he for emen . 1 I !18lie-i ble . Ref err al nci tic es we re add r essed to eight decea sed per sons . Four others to wLom r ef er rals wer e sent had never been on Eight een he d c eased to be r eli ef . members of r eli ef uni ts pri or to 1.;ay Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 870 3 1 , so that they should n ot have been certifi e d f or Works Program Employment~/. Such infor mation as was s ecured indicat ed that they we r e no t intere s t ed i n W. P • .1,. . empl oyment . llir..,e other p ersons were in jail. Inferior Jobs . Seven s ki l l ed workers declined infer io r job s ( i . e . Notwi t hj obs be low their trades) . standing the f a c t that many such worke rs ha.ve ac cep ted comrnca labo r assi gnments , the . r easons wh:r s owe are r el u ctant to do s o are c ogent . First , they fear that if they once acc ep t an "i nf e ri or" j ob t hey may n ot b e r eass igned . SPcond , t hey a re appr ehen sive tha t such oc cupati onal change will b e detrimental to their st a tus both in t he un i on s and J.n the tr ade s to which they b elo ng. l r om a numb e r of int erviews with sue~ me~, it was evid ent b eyond d~ubt t hat unwilli ngne ss t o wo rk was n ot involved . 11 I am good for a nu mb er of y ears E. S an el e ctrician rt , s a id one m2.n , 11 but if I ge t out of my trad e , I won 1 t .J. a st v er y long in anyt h ing els e . 11 Tran spo rt a t j_, n . One worke r, Pho lived in a n outlying t own , wc. s a ssigned t o a p r oj ect whj_ch coul d no t be r eached by local tran sport a tion facilities . Two others l a cked fund s f or tran spo rt a ti on and we r e unab l e t o s ecu r e t hem in ti me t o a cc ept t he ir r ef e~ra ls . In lO cas e s t he exc e ssive c ost of tran sno rt a ti on wa s the pri mary factor involved , the range be ing from 40 ¢ t o 80¢ pe r day . Had the worke rs acc ept ed t he s e jobs , ~~ich we re from 15 to 25 mi l e s fr om t he ir home s , it woul d have been n0ce s sary f or them to spend f r om t hr ee a nd a ha lf to f our and a ha lf hours dai ly in tra vel . ThP.s.:: ·. ·orb,ffs re1, 0;.-t::;-:: .-~.t ·cbe ·,r.P.L. off i ce , the j u stic e of 'L-1.;.c: ir c ompl ain ts was r ecogniz ed , and they we r e al l l ate r r eassi gn ea t o p r oj ec t s neare r home . 1 ~/ Only per s ons r eceivi ng r eli ef i n s ome mon th be twee n May 1 and Novemb er 1 wer e c e rtifi ed for Works Program employment . Oth~r Reas ons . In fiv e cas e s , which , for sp acial reasons , would r equir e continuation of di r ect r elief grants by l ocal wel fare agencies, income from pa rt- time pri vate emplo:rment was such that those resp0nsi t l e for the supe r vision of these cas e s advis e d agaiust accept ence of W. P . J.,.. emplo;,n ent . In only one cas e , that of a structural ir on worker wh o decl i n ed a job a t a subu nion wage , was the union wage scal e the ~ ssue . Two worke r s lacke d n e e essary e~ui pment for the j obs to which they we re a ssi gned , one having no t ool s and th e other ha vi ng no clo ~hing ~~itable f or ou td oo r work . Thr ee h.s: a lready been :9ro mi s ed e mplo Jr;nent 7n p riva t e i ndustry and wE' r e av·E'l.i ting calls to work . One , w.r,os e w: fo wa s i n t;}~e hospita l , wa s obli ged t c r e~ai n a t home and care f or f our s mal l chil d ren . One wa s in schoo l. ~a a r esult of conf usion of ::1a1u , o.,.._,..: w0m3.:;:i was a s sign ed t o a man 's j ct . FJ Qr cas e s i nvol ved cl e rical errors wh ich were later det ect ed and corr ecte d . Refus e1 Wi t hou t Cau s e t o Ac cept Refe rr al~, Only t h r ee of t he 546 wor ke rs r efu s ed with ou t cause to ac ce~ t r ef errals . Two of these , who ,,,e r e s ir-gl e hom ·.:i1. ess men , i mmedi a t ely left the rn,at e e The t hird simp l "· sai c_, 11 I n1ll n ot wo rk, 11 and furth e r i ir ~ct r eli ef was withheld . 1 It is significant that, alth ough i nt ervi ewe rs we r e i n struct ed to s eek · independ ent ve rific a tion of the r eas ons giv en by wo r kers for f a iling to r eno rt or t o a ccep t r ef e rral , in only s ev en cas e s wa s t he vali dity of t he r eas ons doubt ed , and in none,~ t he s e cas e s could sp ec ific f a cts to sup:9o r t i n t ervi ewers' doubts be secu r ed . 'I' endP. nC:' t o Pr ef e r P rivat e Emnloyment . The earnings of 14 of the 165 wo r lcers emplo y ed i n -priva t e i ndu stry , or 8 . 5 percent of t h ose so e mployed ., we r e somewh3.t l ess t han t he W. P. J,. . Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 wage of $55 per month. Ho wever, if the costs of tran_sportation to the W.P.A. jobs were deducted, the differences would, in most cases, t end to be small. Preference for private employme nt was due to various re asons . Three persons , all young men , we re learning trades; two believed their jobs held prospects of future advancement;four were on part-t ime jobs whicn promised soon to beciome full-ti me ~erm2 nent jobs; one, a street huckster, wished to develop his own business ; one had a job for which, because of its pe rmanency, h e was willing to ·sacrifice both relief and W.P . A.work eli g ibility; and three pref e ~, e d to sacrifice both relief and wo~k eli gibility in order to cont ·cr,ue at lowe r wages on j obs of uncertain dur a tion . Conclusions .. This survey of r eas ~n s for unsuccessful r eferrals to the Works Program in Cincinna ti clearly r efut es the claims fr eque ntly inferred t r..1. t; workers we re refusing to take Wo rks Progra~ jobs . The reason for this inference was that prior to this study repo rts merely recorded the differenr,e bet ween the number of r efe rr a ls c:nd the number of placements , providing no infcrma~ion ort circ-1.rnstances surrort'nding unsuccessful referrals . The second conclusion of this study is that as a result of the magnitude of the W. P . A. progr,1-m and the speed with which it was put into operation , all agencies involved i~ it were inevitably subj ec t ed to great pressure . The making of assignments invo lved the u se of records whic~ fell short of the usual s t andards maintained in r egular employment agenci es not operating under emergency conditi ons. 1hus, there were 412 cases, or 75 percent of the unsuccessful referrals studi ed , which were, for the various re asons given in the table on page 1, unassignable at the time that the work notice was issued . As ex Jerience, and the passi ng of the tremendous surge of 11 first placements" on the Works I'rogram 11ak.Jr. possible the develo pment of a more closely articulpted admin istra tive org;uiization , it is t9 be expected that most of the difficulties refer: ' ed \o -ill in large measure disa.ppear~ / . ~1eanwhile, unwillingness t o ,.,o rk, c... n:i r efusals wi 'chout cause , to ac:c'?-r,-;; job referrals a re undc,ibtedl ~r of minor imuortance in the p r ,~blem . 0 TOLEDO -Up to _; E cerr.t0r 2 , 1935 out of the to t a l 1 6 , 572 assignments in Luca s County , Ohio, ~ , 034 or 30 pe rcent, had not resulted in p l acements of r elief cL. ents in Wc rk s Program emplo J ment. The rec ords on 4 , 200 unsu ccessful cases were available in -;;j OouJ '.3 an -~ -2.equate ly close and accur a te Lhe ck have been maintained on al l ce rtifi ed worke rs in the l abo r pla cement files , at least 90 percent, or all except 54 of the 546 cases , might have been cleared and no assignm ent notice issued. The 54 remaining cases were : seven in which referrals t o inferior jobs were refused , one 'refusal of a job at a sub-uni on wage , 31 in which wo rkers we re physically unfit fo r the particular job to whi ch they were assigned , 1 3 involving transport a tion difficulties , and two in whicn v1orke r s l acked necessary equipwent fo r the job . 1 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 870 3 t he di strict office when the s tudy began , and fro m these a 10 pe r cen t sampl e was drawn at r andom . Three hundre d and f i fty- one ca s es , or over 80 pe rcent of t he s ampl e , ?1ere l ocat ed wi thin the city limi ts of Tol edo , and the remaini ng ca s e s we r e in the ad j oini ng t own ship s within a r adius of 30 mil e s f r om t he city. Th e follo wi ng t able gives i n detail the r e asons why the 420 assignmen ts i n t he s ample proved u nsu cces sful : Total . . ... ..... ... . . .. . ... .. .. .. . 420 Employed ••.•.•.... ... ..... . . 2~2 I n priva t e industry . . . .. 17 3 On W. P . J.... job s . ..... ... . 3 7 In C. C. C.. .. ..... . . . . ... 1 2 On r eli ef work . .... . . ... 1 0 It is e v iden t f r om t he p r ecedi ng table tha t the Toledo wo r ker s i nt e rvi ewed v:e r e unable t o accep t r eferral t o W. P .J... j obs f or r ea s on s similar t o tho s e r epo r ted i n the Cin c innati su rvey . F if ty- t hree pe r c ent of thos e who d i d not acc ept ref e rra l in Tol edo we r e employed , as c ompar ed with 48 ue rc en t employed i n Cinc i nna ti . W'c er eas 30 pe rc ent of t he wo r ke rs i ncluted i n the Ci nc innat i s ampl e wer e ~nabl e t o accep t the ir a ssi gnment q becaus e they al r e~dy had privat e jobs , the corr e spo nding pe rc0rt dge i n 11 ol edo wa s 41 . I n this c on~ ~ct i on " t may be noted t h~t f a ct ory emp: o;:.,,ent i n To~edo sl:owed s ome imoi ov,. ment i n t h G month i mme". ·"J l (• t - I ,:, . -~ 1. --::--- r· ~~3 C R~ t lTI-~ ,,!1 C; 11e r 1• oc1_1 . C• O .!.. . r ·.1~ . s •'1 , act iv e a2si gnment~ . Fai l u r e of notif i cation ... .. 81 'J.'C''. ..) rarily OU t O! ~( -: ·.:, ..••......... ..... . 5 it,t 10 cat ed . . • . . . . . . . . . . • 23 :'.: ::1c ·' :' :t ~lc t addru ... s .. . .•• 1 2 _ lt i..i. c e s not r ec e ived • . .•• 41 r:.~• Li c,i:,JJ-7 u nf i t . . . . . . . . . • . . • 45 ? e:..·.u.a.nent dis ~bi l i ty .... . 10 Temp orary disabili ty ..•.. 24 Physical l y unfit fo r j ob a ss igned .... . . . . . ... 11 'E' or t 3r- r Lrie 0f the 1 73 empl o;red in p r ivP.te i n11,st:..·y v er e wo r k i ng for a wc1s-e lowe r t h,qn tha t offe r ed f or W. P. h . ~or k . Undoub t edly p ro s~ec ts of :o er manen t empl o;y.:.e nt and of eventual h i f he r wage s i nfluen c ed s ome to f or ego an i m.1,3di at.e increase in income . For o t he rs, bo·r;e v er, tn e expl a..11ation i s si ~~l y ~hat t h ey pref err ed priva t~ em:pl oT ncn t and V'c r e wi ll ing to acc e:J t a 1 y ·er L1come in t he eff ort to bE:.: c orne s elf- suppo r ting. 1 Re ject ed by for em~n .. .. .. . .. 1 7 ill other •• . •..... . .. .. .. . .. 45 Occupation a s si gned inf e r i or to u sual , . . .. .... 1 3 SkiJls not po ss ess ed by cli ent ...... . ... .. ...... 2 DistG.I1oe fr om p ro j ect • . .. 9 Par t - time empl oyment plus r eli ef be tt er t han '\'iP J.. 3 Lack of a dequat e equi pmen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No l onge r a memb e r of ·r elief hous ehold .. . .. .. Needed at home t o care fa- sick pe rs ons . . . .... . Miscel l ane ou s . . . . . . . 2 8 Twent;;- percent of the Tol e d G sar-:9l e fa il ed to accep t ass i gnment s be caus e they had not r e c e ived thei r not ices of r ef e rral , had moved , coui d not be l ocated , or wer e out of t own. The not i ficat i on di fficultie s in To l edo wer e i ncreas ed by t he fa ct that a ssi g~ment s wer e made unde r 1/ Facto r y emnl oymen t in Tol edo i ncreas ed g . 6 pP. rc ent be tween Sep t E- rnbe r and c ct obe r according t o figur e s i n th e Tol ed o Busi ne s s :?.eview , lTovemb er 1 9 35 1 page 6 . 2 S Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 considerable pressure of time , and by the fact that several organi zations part icip·a ted in delivering the notices . un justifiab le r eason s for f a ilure to a ccept referral . A few examples are cite d below . In the Toledo study some of the worke rs were rejected by the foremen for re as ons othe r than phys ical unfitness ; some of them lacke d skills neces sary for the job , o.n d ot he rs were not ne eded on the p roj ec t . Thes e c a se s have been g r oupe d separ3,tely in this study be c a .1 se t hey a.id r eport to the project a n d snowe d thei r r eadines s to take W. P . A. jobs $8 . 00 .An auto mechanic , who was earning 1 per weel,;: a t 06.d jobs in his back y2.r d , r efus ed a W.P.A. j ob although he might have acc ept ed it and continued to earn the $8 . 00 pe r week . Hi s r efu sal r esulted in discontinuance of r e lief , and afte r reconsideration this worker was p r epared to acc ept any job offe r ed him . J nother man refus ed r efe rral to a j i boring j ob bec aus e he wa~~t ed a .• ·-:i ·J as a pa-inte r. It was disc') 11·e r e r J howe ver, t::-iat his expe rience a s a painte r was limit e d to thr ee mo'"l t hs . W. ?. A. Thirteen Toledo worker s , out of ,the sample of 420 , refus ed ass i gnments to jobs which we r ~ inferi ~r to the ir usual occupat ions . Twrlve of them wer e whit e- collar and r r of e s-· sional workers who had been assi gne~ to laboring jobs and one was a skilled worke r · v,ho haa. been ins tructed by his union to r efuse a jJb as unski l l ed l abo re r . The other r easons wny worke rs faile~ to r eport t o p ro jac ts in Tole do we re similar to those rcpor tea in Cincinnat i; d~stance fr om pro ject , lack of skill , l ack of e quipment , no longer a membe r of reli ef hous eho l d , In thr e E case s ·a nd needed a t home . workers intervie wed in the To l edo study ,had refus e d W.P .A. j obs because their curren t part- t i me emp loyment supplemented by reli ef grants provided a higher income than wou ld a W.P . A. job . Unjustifiable Refusals . The absenc e of any satisfactory obj ec tive crit e ri on for jud5 ing t he jus tif i cation of failur es to a ccept r efe r r a l to W.P.A . m2..kes discussion of thi s subjec t somewhat inconclusive . There were but seven cRs es , or l ess than 2 percent of the entire samp l e , which were conside r ed to h~ve had One '.vor';:e r claimed he had neve r r eu eived 8~Jigrunen t , but i nvesti ga t i0::i r evr:: -!~. e d tn8.t the ass i gnment haa been ,.- ::, 1_i v<=- ·e (l t o him pe r so nally by a soci u.l wo:::l:e r . He was apparently a tt emp ti~b t o conceal the fact tha t he p r eferre d the highe r income wh~ch he wa s rece i v j ng from part .t ime emp i ,:- /rnent plus c.irect relief . Difficul:ies in Ass ignnent Proce ;:iu..re - - - . ~;c,·,1e c;f th6 diff iculties er.·..; ount e:- <:. :; i .1 not ifying clients hm-e a lrea d.,/ been discusse d in the s ec ti on pe rtaining to Cinci nnat i. I n To:1..edo the p ressure of assignment work during the las t two we eks of Novembe r re quire d devi a ti ons from the r egular procedur es and r esulted in an incr ease in the numb er of inaccur a cie s and dup lica tions. The Ohio Stat e Employment Service and the W.P. A. a lt erna t ed in making ass i gnments on s eve ral successive day~ . When t he emp loym ent se rvic e ma ne a ssignments i n the mo r n ing and the W. P . A. made as s ignments in the aft e rnoon , ne ither organizati on coul d be curr ently informed a s to the a s sign- Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 - 7w ments made by the other. STAP.K AND ATHENS COUNTIES The third study of u.nsuccessful assignments to W.P.A. employment was conducted in the rural and town di~tricts of Stark and Athens Counties, Ohio . Urban centers of 5,000 or more inhabitants were exc luded. Only a small propo rti on of the workers interviewed were usuallJ enpursuits . gaged in aericultural Forty- two percent of the workers int e rviewed in Athens County indicated their usual occupation to be in the mining industry , and the usual occupations of tho se in Stark Cuunty we r e fo r the most part in tt e iron and steel industries . Private employment increased during the autumn Eonths in both counties , particularly in Athens where coal mining was r esumed to an extent unequaled in rec ent ye ars . I nformation regarding t.he emp l o:"!Ilent s itua tion is i:mpo r t , !11; i n i r. te :'J: :'.'Ating the r esults of this study , siDce the increase oc curred a.t the s ame time that activity in as si gnme nt to W. P . A. pro j ects was gre a t es t . The 273 f a ilure s t o accept 7:orl:s Program em1)loyment wh".ch were s tudied repr esent a 100 pcr~ent enumera tion of the 134 such cases in the rural and town sections of Athens County and about thre e fo;irths of the Stark County rur a l and tomi cases . The following t able sho ws the reasons for the failure of the 273 assignments : Total ........ . .. ........ ........• 273 Employed •............ ......•• 1 66 In private industry ..... 143 Home farm employment..... 3 Already on W.P.A. jobs •. 3 In C.C.C .. . .....•..•.••• 13 On relief w~rk ....... . . 4 Failure of notification •..•.... 45 Temporarily out of town .... 9 Not located .......... . . .. .• 19 Late notification .......... 4 Notice not received ........ 13 Physically unfit ..............• 33 Permanent dis ability ......• 12 Temporary disability .••.••• 18 P:1ysically unfit for job assigned. •...•..........••• 3 Distance excessive •............ 12 Other re a sons ....... . .........• 17 Err1neouE 1y li sted as fai lur es i;o r8p \:>rt .....••. 4 No l onge~ ~ member of r~lief househo]1 .•........ 3 O.ccu,2. t.·. on ass i g1ed infe ri cr ~o ~fua l •......•• 1 I n jai 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 2 In schoo} , ...............•• 2 1.1~.s~ ellc=-:. t_.:~ ·us., ............• 5 1 As was true in th8 Cincinnati and Toledo studies , the main re ason fo r f a ilur e to a cc ep t ref e rral was priv.::.te em:plc._1ment . Suer employment accoun t8 d fer more t han half the cases There we re inclured in the sPJnple . in a d~iti on three farm op erators who pn fgr re c. t o f c:;:-8 6 0 W.P.A . employment vhat they might work on i n orde r t ho. ir f a rm s . Sixte en pe rcent of the sample indicated notif ~c ~ti o~ difficulties, Thi s \'7a s a- consid.8r a-oly smalle r pro portion than in the Cincinnati and However , the gr oup Tole do studies . of those not physi c ally fit was proportionetely the same , a lthough r el ati Yel;r f ew of the unsuccessful assignments in St a rk and Athens Counti es involved unfitness for a particul ar job . The facto r of distance from project naturally as sumed greater importance in thi s rur a l study than in the two urban studies . Twelve failures to acc ep t r efe rral , or 4 pe rcent of the sample , we re the result of Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8703 - 8- excessive distance from the worker ' s home to the p r oject . The aver age di s tance for five wo rkers who woul d have had to walk was t welve miles daily. The remaining seven, who could have obtained transp ~rtation, would each have incurred a subst antial cost averaging five dollar s weekly, bad they accepted their as signments. I n one extreme case , a worker would have been obliged t o tr av el 130 mi l es daily . When ass ignments are unsuccessful because the men r e c e iving assignment slips ar e already engaged in p riva t e or W. P . A. employment , a re too ill to work, or a re no longer living in the community , it is manifest that the wo r kers have not 11 r efused 11 W.P.A. jobs . Cases which fal l outside thi s 11 unassignable 11 catego ry are r elati ve ly fe TI and must be cons ide r ed in the li gh t of surrounding circumstances . In 12 ins tances the inve stigat ors indicated u.ncertaint;;r with respect to the validity of the re ason g i ven , but it is pra ctically impo s nible to fo r mul a te c ri teria by whi ch jus~ ific a tion can be det ermine J.. Not one case inte rviewe d off e :·ed a r e aso n which in it se lf was pat sTtly 1.,;-•1 j ustifiable. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
@FedFRASER